Monday, July 23, 2012

THE IMMORALITY of the MEXICAN INVASION, OCCUPATION and GRINGO-PAID WELFARE STATE


We need a national dialogue about the morality of Mexico exporting millions of their poor, illiterate, criminal, and frequently pregnant over our borders, and our own government’s tacit collusion in this invasion.
It’s not from generousity or concern for the poor of a foreign country that most of the Fortune 500 are generous donors to the Mexican Fascist Party of La Raza – “The Race”.
It’s all about exploitation. The American worker having to compete with the desperate and exploited Mexican worker exported by their own corrupt country.

*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, October 5, 2009

 Father PATRICK BASCIO has a remarkably different perspective on illegal immigration from that of most Christian clergymen-one he’s outlined in a remarkable new book entitled
On the Immorality of Illegal Immigration: An Alternative Christian View.
*
On The Immorality of Illegal Immigration: A Priest Poses an Alternative Christian View

By C.S. Patrick J. Bascio



Editorial Reviews

Father Bascio presents a strikingly different perspective on illegal immigration from that of most Christian clergymen. He turns his spotlight on the harm of officially tolerated illegal immigration to America's own struggling workers in the form of joblessness, shrinking wages and poorer working conditions. African-American workers, already plagued by job discrimination, bear the heaviest burden of the illegal invasion, which locks them out of many workplaces or drives wages below acceptable levels. The chronic non-enforcement of immigration laws is no accident: Congress has little stomach for ending something so profitable for their most powerful donors and the voters they can muster. The author fears that many committed Christians are blinded to these abuses by their church leaders' preoccupation with charity toward illegal aliens, while ignoring the plight of millions of low-wage Americans. He deftly rebuts the self-serving myth of employers' and politicians' that illegals "do jobs Americans won't do." Bascio also sees the profit motive behind legal immigration policies that lure the third world's best and brightest to America, stripping poorer nations of their physicians, teachers and scientists. As a Catholic priest, the author admits the unpleasantness of taking a position not shared by his Church's hierarchy, which is driven by the prospect of rising membership. Bascio sees unchecked illegal immigration as having grave consequences for overall U.S. tranquility: disdain for the rule of law, street gangs, document fraud and identity theft, staggering welfare and education costs and creeping "Balkanization" that threatens the national principle of E Pluribus Unum. Father Bascio's book is a resounding appeal to Christians to re-examine their churches' conventional view of illegal immigration and consider the hardship it brings for fellow Americans and its dangers for the nation as a whole.
About the Author
Father Patrick Pascio is a retired Catholic priest, international human rights expert, professor and writer whose long ministry has included assignments in the U.S., Tanzania and the Caribbean islands. In Trinidad he taught at the University of the West Indies and, in Grenada, advised the Prime Minister and represented that country on U.N. committees. He founded and directed Salve Regina University's PhD program and directed its Master's program in Humanities. He is a U.S. Air Force veteran of World War II. Father Bascio has two master's degrees in the social sciences and a doctorate. A prolific writer, Bascio's works since 1994 include The Failure of White Theology: A Black Theological Perspective (1994); Gorbachev and the Collapse of the Soviet Communist Party (with Evgueny Novikov -1994); Defeating Islamic Terrorism: The Wahabi Factor (2006); and Perfidy: the Government Cabal that Knowingly Abandoned Our Prisoners of War (2008).
*
The Mexican Invasion................................................
Mexico prefers to export its poor, not uplift them

March 30, 2006 edition

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0330/p09s02-coop.html

Mexico prefers to export its poor, not uplift them
At this week's summit, failed reforms under Fox should be the issue, not US actions.

By George W. Grayson WILLIAMSBURG, VA.

At the parleys this week with his US and Canadian counterparts in Cancún, Mexican President Vicente Fox will press for more opportunities for his countrymen north of the Rio Grande. Specifically, he will argue for additional visas for Mexicans to enter the United States and Canada, the expansion of guest-worker schemes, and the "regularization" of illegal immigrants who reside throughout the continent. In a recent interview with CNN, the Mexican chief executive excoriated as "undemocratic" the extension of a wall on the US-Mexico border and called for the "orderly, safe, and legal" northbound flow of Mexicans, many of whom come from his home state of Guanajuato. Mexican legislators share Mr. Fox's goals. Silvia Hernández Enriquez, head of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for North America, recently emphasized that the solution to the "structural phenomenon" of unlawful migration lies not with "walls or militarization" but with "understanding, cooperation, and joint responsibility." Such rhetoric would be more convincing if Mexican officials were making a good faith effort to uplift the 50 percent of their 106 million people who live in poverty. To his credit, Fox's "Opportunities" initiative has improved slightly the plight of the poorest of the poor. Still, neither he nor Mexico's lawmakers have advanced measures that would spur sustained growth, improve the quality of the workforce, curb unemployment, and obviate the flight of Mexicans abroad. Indeed, Mexico's leaders have turned hypocrisy from an art form into an exact science as they shirk their obligations to fellow citizens, while decrying efforts by the US senators and representatives to crack down on illegal immigration at the border and the workplace. What are some examples of this failure of responsibility? · When oil revenues are excluded, Mexico raises the equivalent of only 9 percent of its gross domestic product in taxes - a figure roughly equivalent to that of Haiti and far below the level of major Latin American nations. Not only is Mexico's collection rate ridiculously low, its fiscal regime is riddled with loopholes and exemptions, giving rise to widespread evasion. Congress has rebuffed efforts to reform the system. Insufficient revenues mean that Mexico spends relatively little on two key elements of social mobility: Education commands just 5.3 percent of its GDP and healthcare only 6.10 percent, according to the World Bank's last comparative study. · A venal, "come-back-tomorrow" bureaucracy explains the 58 days it takes to open a business in Mexico compared with three days in Canada, five days in the US, nine days in Jamaica, and 27 days in Chile. Mexico's private sector estimates that 34 percent of the firms in the country made "extra official" payments to functionaries and legislators in 2004. These bribes totaled $11.2 billion and equaled 12 percent of GDP. · Transparency International, a nongovernmental organization, placed Mexico in a tie with Ghana, Panama, Peru, and Turkey for 65th among 158 countries surveyed for corruption. · Economic competition is constrained by the presence of inefficient, overstaffed state oil and electricity monopolies, as well as a small number of private corporations - closely linked to government big shots - that control telecommunications, television, food processing, transportation, construction, and cement. Politicians who talk about, much less propose, trust-busting measures are as rare as a snowfall in the Sonoran Desert. Geography, self-interests, and humanitarian concerns require North America's neighbors to cooperate on myriad issues, not the least of which is immigration. However, Mexico's power brokers have failed to make the difficult decisions necessary to use their nation's bountiful wealth to benefit the masses. Washington and Ottawa have every right to insist that Mexico's pampered elite act responsibly, rather than expecting US and Canadian taxpayers to shoulder burdens Mexico should assume.
*
Is Illegal Immigration Moral?
By Victor Davis Hanson
11/25/2010

We know illegal immigration is no longer really unlawful, but is it moral?
Usually Americans debate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. Supporters of open borders rightly remind us that illegal immigrants pay sales taxes. Often their payroll-tax contributions are not later tapped by Social Security payouts.
Opponents counter that illegal immigrants are more likely to end up on state assistance, are less likely to report cash income, and cost the state more through the duplicate issuing of services and documents in both English and Spanish. Such to-and-fro talking points are endless.
So is the debate over beneficiaries of illegal immigration. Are profit-minded employers villains who want cheap labor in lieu of hiring more expensive Americans? Or is the culprit a cynical Mexican government that counts on billions of dollars in remittances from its expatriate poor that it otherwise ignored?
Or is the engine that drives illegal immigration the American middle class? Why should millions of suburbanites assume that, like 18th-century French aristocrats, they should have imported labor to clean their homes, manicure their lawns and watch over their kids?
Or is the catalyst the self-interested professional Latino lobby in politics and academia that sees a steady stream of impoverished Latin American nationals as a permanent victimized constituency, empowering and showcasing elite self-appointed spokesmen such as themselves?
Or is the real advocate the Democratic Party that wishes to remake the electoral map of the American Southwest by ensuring larger future pools of natural supporters? Again, the debate over who benefits and why is never-ending.
But what is often left out of the equation is the moral dimension of illegal immigration. We see the issue too often reduced to caricature, involving a noble, impoverished victim without much free will and subject to cosmic forces of sinister oppression. But everyone makes free choices that affect others. So ponder the ethics of a guest arriving in a host country knowingly against its sovereign protocols and laws.
First, there is the larger effect on the sanctity of a legal system. If a guest ignores the law -- and thereby often must keep breaking more laws -- should citizens also have the right to similarly pick and choose which statutes they find worthy of honoring and which are too bothersome? Once it is deemed moral for the impoverished to cross a border without a passport, could not the same arguments of social justice be used for the poor of any status not to report earned income or even file a 1040 form?
Second, what is the effect of mass illegal immigration on impoverished U.S. citizens? Does anyone care? When 10 million to 15 million aliens are here illegally, where is the leverage for the American working poor to bargain with employers? If it is deemed ethical to grant in-state tuition discounts to illegal-immigrant students, is it equally ethical to charge three times as much for out-of-state, financially needy American students -- whose federal government usually offers billions to subsidize state colleges and universities? If foreign nationals are afforded more entitlements, are there fewer for U.S. citizens?
Third, consider the moral ramifications on legal immigration -- the traditional great strength of the American nation. What are we to tell the legal immigrant from Oaxaca who got a green card at some cost and trouble, or who, once legally in the United States, went through the lengthy and expensive process of acquiring citizenship? Was he a dupe to dutifully follow our laws?
And given the current precedent, if a million soon-to-be-impoverished Greeks, 2 million fleeing North Koreans, or 5 million starving Somalis were to enter the United States illegally and en masse, could anyone object to their unlawful entry and residence? If so, on what legal, practical or moral grounds?
Fourth, examine the morality of remittances. It is deemed noble to send billions of dollars back to families and friends struggling in Latin America. But how is such a considerable loss of income made up? Are American taxpayers supposed to step in to subsidize increased social services so that illegal immigrants can afford to send billions of dollars back across the border? What is the morality of that equation in times of recession? Shouldn't illegal immigrants at least try to buy health insurance before sending cash back to Mexico?
The debate over illegal immigration is too often confined to costs and benefits. But ultimately it is a complicated moral issue -- and one often ignored by all too many moralists.
Victor Davis Hanson
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.

Poverty in America as Mexico Exports Millions of Mexicans to Loot America


What's needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known for years: Enforce existing law.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*
“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
In his first state of the union speech since becoming president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon criticized the U.S. government and its efforts to shut down illegal immigration. During the speech Calderon proclaimed that “Mexico does not end at its borders” and that “where there is a Mexican, there is a Mexico.” Tune in for a full report on Calderon’s vigorous fight to protect Mexican interests in the United States—even when they’re built on illegal immigration.
*
“What's needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known for years: Enforce existing law.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*
“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
*
WE ARE MEXICO’S WELFARE, JOBS, “FREE” ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING CENTER, AND JAILS PLAN! FOR THIS THE MEXICAN WAVE THEIR COUNTRY’S FLAGS IN OUR FACES, SPEAK ONLY SPANISH, AND LOOT OUR NATION!


“Such rhetoric would be more convincing if Mexican officials were making a good faith effort to uplift the 50 percent of their 106 million people who live in poverty.”

*
“What's needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known for years: Enforce existing law.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*
“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
*
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

from the March 30, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0330/p09s02-coop.html

MEXICO PREFERS TO EXPORT ITS POOR, NOT UPLIFT THEM

At this week's summit, failed reforms under Fox should be the issue, not US actions.

By George W. Grayson



WILLIAMSBURG, VA. - At the parleys this week with his US and Canadian counterparts in Cancún, Mexican President Vicente Fox will press for more opportunities for his countrymen north of the Rio Grande. Specifically, he will argue for additional visas for Mexicans to enter the United States and Canada, the expansion of guest-worker schemes, and the "regularization" of illegal immigrants who reside throughout the continent. In a recent interview with CNN, the Mexican chief executive excoriated as "undemocratic" the extension of a wall on the US-Mexico border and called for the "orderly, safe, and legal" northbound flow of Mexicans, many of whom come from his home state of Guanajuato. Mexican legislators share Mr. Fox's goals. Silvia Hernández Enriquez, head of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for North America, recently emphasized that the solution to the "structural phenomenon" of unlawful migration lies not with "walls or militarization" but with "understanding, cooperation, and joint responsibility." Such rhetoric would be more convincing if Mexican officials were making a good faith effort to uplift the 50 percent of their 106 million people who live in poverty. To his credit, Fox's "Opportunities" initiative has improved slightly the plight of the poorest of the poor. Still, neither he nor Mexico's lawmakers have advanced measures that would spur sustained growth, improve the quality of the workforce, curb unemployment, and obviate the flight of Mexicans abroad. Indeed, Mexico's leaders have turned hypocrisy from an art form into an exact science as they shirk their obligations to fellow citizens, while decrying efforts by the US senators and representatives to crack down on illegal immigration at the border and the workplace. What are some examples of this failure of responsibility? · When oil revenues are excluded, Mexico raises the equivalent of only 9 percent of its gross domestic product in taxes - a figure roughly equivalent to that of Haiti and far below the level of major Latin American nations. Not only is Mexico's collection rate ridiculously low, its fiscal regime is riddled with loopholes and exemptions, giving rise to widespread evasion. Congress has rebuffed efforts to reform the system. Insufficient revenues mean that Mexico spends relatively little on two key elements of social mobility: Education commands just 5.3 percent of its GDP and healthcare only 6.10 percent, according to the World Bank's last comparative study. · A venal, "come-back-tomorrow" bureaucracy explains the 58 days it takes to open a business in Mexico compared with three days in Canada, five days in the US, nine days in Jamaica, and 27 days in Chile. Mexico's private sector estimates that 34 percent of the firms in the country made "extra official" payments to functionaries and legislators in 2004. These bribes totaled $11.2 billion and equaled 12 percent of GDP. · Transparency International, a nongovernmental organization, placed Mexico in a tie with Ghana, Panama, Peru, and Turkey for 65th among 158 countries surveyed for corruption. · Economic competition is constrained by the presence of inefficient, overstaffed state oil and electricity monopolies, as well as a small number of private corporations - closely linked to government big shots - that control telecommunications, television, food processing, transportation, construction, and cement.

THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ARE IN THE HANDS OF CARLOS SLIM, A MEX WITH 70 BILLION! SLIM IS NOW THE RICHEST MAN IN THE WORLD, AND OWNS 10% OF THE NEW YORK TIMES. IF YOU GET THE TIMES, YOU WILL NOTE THAT IT IS NOW THE MOUTHPIECE FOR LA RAZA PROPAGANDA, DAILY COMING OUT WITH EDITORIALS THAT SUPPORT LA RAZA SUPREMACY, AND NEVER, EVER, EVER AN ARTICLE OF MEXICAN CRIME TIDAL WAVE, THE LA RAZA WELFARE STATE, OR MEXICAN RACISM!
Politicians who talk about, much less propose, trust-busting measures are as rare as a snowfall in the Sonoran Desert. Geography, self-interests, and humanitarian concerns require North America's neighbors to cooperate on myriad issues, not the least of which is immigration. However, Mexico's power brokers have failed to make the difficult decisions necessary to use their nation's bountiful wealth to benefit the masses. Washington and Ottawa have every right to insist that Mexico's pampered elite act responsibly, rather than expecting US and Canadian taxpayers to shoulder burdens Mexico should assume.
*
“What's needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known for years: Enforce existing law.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR

*
“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
*
UNFETTERED IMMIGRATION = Poverty FOR AMERICANS
FIRST WE ARE FORCED TO HAND OVER OUR JOBS TO LA RAZA (OBAMA’S SEC. OF (ILLEGAL) LABOR IS A LA RAZA SUPREMACIST HILDA SOLIS. HER JOB IS TO BUY THE ILLEGALS VOTES WITH OUR JOBS!), THEN WE GET THE STAGGERING BILLS FOR THE LA RAZA WELFARE STATE, AND THEN WE’RE TOLD TO PUSH 2 FOR ENGLISH! VIVA LA RAZA?
*
By Robert Rector Heritage.org | May 16, 2006

This paper focuses on the net fiscal effects of immigration with particular emphasis on the fiscal effects of low skill immigration. The fiscal effects of immigration are only one aspect of the impact of immigration. Immigration also has social, political, and economic effects. In particular, the economic effects of immigration have been heavily researched with differing results. These economic effects lie beyond the scope of this paper. Overall, immigration is a net fiscal positive to the government’s budget in the long run: the taxes immigrants pay exceed the costs of the services they receive. However, the fiscal impact of immigrants varies strongly according to immigrants’ education level. College-educated immigrants are likely to be strong contributors to the government’s finances, with their taxes exceeding the government’s costs. By contrast, immigrants with low education levels are likely to be a fiscal drain on other taxpayers. This is important because half of all adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. have less than a high school education. In addition, recent immigrants have high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which increases welfare costs and poverty. An immigration plan proposed by Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would provide amnesty to 9 to 10 million illegal immigrants and put them on a path to citizenship. Once these individuals become citizens, the net additional cost to the federal government of benefits for these individuals will be around $16 billion per year. Further, once an illegal immigrant becomes a citizen, he has the right to bring his parents to live in the U.S. The parents, in turn, may become citizens. The long-term cost of government benefits to the parents of 10 million recipients of amnesty could be $30 billion per year or more. In the long run, the Hagel/Martinez bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years. Current Trends in Immigration Over the last 40 years, immigration into the United States has surged. Our nation is now experiencing a second “great migration” similar to the great waves of immigrants that transformed America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 2004, an estimated 35.7 million foreign-born persons lived in the U.S. While in 1970 one person in twenty was foreign born, by 2004 the number had risen to one in eight. About one-third of all foreign-born persons in the U.S. are illegal aliens. There are between 10 and 12 million illegal aliens currently living in the U.S.[1] Illegal aliens now comprise 3 to 4 percent of the total U.S. population. Each year approximately 1.3 million new immigrants enter the U.S.[2] Some 700,000 of these entrants are illegal.[3] One third of all foreign-born persons in the U.S. are Mexican. Overall, the number of Mexicans in the U.S. has increased from 760,000 in 1970 to 10.6 million in 2004. Nine percent of all Mexicans now reside in the U.S.[4] Over half of all Mexicans in the U.S. are illegal immigrants,[5] and in the last decade 80 to 85 percent of the inflow of Mexicans into the U.S. has been illegal.[6] The public generally perceives illegals to be unattached single men. This is, in fact, not the case. Some 44 percent of adult illegals are women. While illegal men work slightly more than native-born men; illegal women work less. Among female illegals, some 56 percent work, compared to 73 percent among native-born women of comparable age.[7] As well, Mexican women emigrating to the U.S. have a considerably higher fertility rate than women remaining in Mexico.[8] Decline in Immigrant Wages Over the last 40 years the education level of new immigrants has fallen relative to the native population. As the relative education levels of immigrants have declined, so has their earning capacity compared to the general U.S. population. Immigrants arriving in the U.S. around 1960 had wages, at the time of entry, that were just 13 percent less than natives’. In 1965, the nation’s immigration law was dramatically changed, and from 1990 on, illegal immigration surged. The result was a decline in the relative skill levels of new immigrants. By 1998, new immigrants had an average entry wage that was 34 percent less than natives.’[12] Because of their lower education levels, illegal immigrants’ wages would have been even lower. The low-wage status of recent illegal immigrants can be illustrated by the wages of recent immigrants from Mexico, a majority of whom have entered the U.S. illegally. In 2000, the median weekly wage of a first-generation Mexican immigrant was $323. This was 54 percent of the corresponding wage for non-Hispanic whites in the general population.[13] Historically, the relative wages of recent immigrants have risen after entry as immigrants gained experience in the labor market. For example, immigrants who arrived in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s saw their relative wages rise by 10 percentage points compared to natives’ wages during their first 20 years in the country. But in recent years, this modest catch up effect has diminished. Immigrants who arrived in the late 1980s actually saw their relative wages shrink in the 1990s.[14] Immigration and Welfare Dependence Welfare may be defined as means-tested aid programs: these programs provide cash, non-cash, and social service assistance that is limited to low-income households. The major means-tested programs include Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, public housing, the earned income credit, and Medicaid. Historically, recent immigrants were less likely to receive welfare than native-born Americans. But over the last thirty years, this historic pattern has reversed. As the relative education levels of immigrants fell, their tendency to receive welfare benefits increased. By the late 1990s immigrant households were fifty percent more likely to receive means-tested aid than native-born households.[15] Moreover, immigrants appear to assimilate into welfare use. The longer immigrants live in the U.S., the more likely they are to use welfare.[16] A large part, but not all, of immigrants’ higher welfare use is explained by their low education levels. Welfare use also varies by immigrants’ national origin. For example, in the late 1990s, 5.6 percent of immigrants from India received means-tested benefits; among Mexican immigrants the figure was 34.1 percent; and for immigrants from the Dominican Republic the figure was 54.9 percent.[17] Ethnic differences in the propensity to receive welfare that appear among first-generation immigrants persist strongly in the second generation.[18] The relatively high use of welfare among Mexicans has significant implications for current proposals to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Some 80 percent of illegal immigrants come from Mexico and Latin America.[19] (See Chart 1) Historically, Hispanics in America have had very high levels of welfare use. Chart 2 shows receipt of aid from major welfare programs by different ethnic groups in 1999; the programs covered are Medicaid, Food Stamps, public housing, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, General Assistance, and Supplemental Security Income.[20] As the chart shows, Hispanics were almost three times more likely to receive welfare than non-Hispanic whites. In addition, among families that received aid, the cost of the aid received was 40 percent higher for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic whites.[21] Putting together the greater probability of receiving welfare with the greater cost of welfare per family means that, on average, Hispanic families received four times more welfare per family than white non-Hispanics. 1. Part, but not all, of this high level of welfare use by Hispanics can be explained by background factors such as family structure.[22] It seems likely that, if Hispanic illegal immigrants are given permanent residence and citizenship, they and their children will likely assimilate into the culture of high welfare use that characterizes Hispanics in the U.S. This would impose significant costs on taxpayers and society as a whole. Welfare use can also be measured by immigration status. In general, immigrant households are about fifty percent more likely to use welfare than native-born households.[23] Immigrants with less education are more likely to use welfare. (See Chart 3) 1. The potential welfare costs of low-skill immigration and amnesty for current illegal immigrants can be assessed by looking at the welfare utilization rates for current low-skill immigrants. As Chart 4 shows, immigrants without a high school degree (both lawful and unlawful) are two-and-a-half times more likely to use welfare than native-born individuals.[24] This underscores the high potential welfare costs of giving amnesty to illegal immigrants. 1. All categories of high school dropouts have a high utilization of welfare. Immigrants who have less than a high school degree are slightly more likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts. Legal immigrants who are high school dropouts are slightly more likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts.[25] Illegal immigrant dropouts, however, are less likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts mainly because they are ineligible for many welfare programs. With amnesty, current illegal immigrants’ welfare use would likely rise to the level of lawful immigrants with similar education levels. Illegal Immigration and Poverty 1. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 4.7 million children of illegal immigrant parents currently live in the U.S.[26] Some 37 percent of these children are poor.[27] While children of illegal immigrant parents comprise around 6 percent of all children in the U.S., they are 11.8 percent of all poor children.[28] This high level of child poverty among illegal immigrants in the U.S. is, in part, due to low education levels and low wages. It is also linked to the decline in marriage among Hispanics in the U.S. Within this group, 45 percent of children are born out-of-wedlock.[29] (See Table 1.) Among foreign-born Hispanics the rate is 42.3 percent.[30] By contrast, the out-of-wedlock birth rate for non-Hispanic whites is 23.4 percent.[31] The birth rate for Hispanic teens is higher than for black teens.[32] While the out-of-wedlock birth rate for blacks has remained flat for the last decade, it has risen steadily for Hispanics.[33] These figures are important because, as noted, some 80 percent of illegal aliens come from Mexico and Latin America.[34] In general, children born and raised outside of marriage are seven times more likely to live in poverty than children born and raised by married couples. Children born out-of-wedlock are also more likely to be on welfare, to have lower educational achievement, to have emotional problems, to abuse drugs and alcohol, and to become involved in crime.[35] 5. Poverty is also more common among adult illegal immigrants, who are twice as likely to be poor as are native-born adults. Some 27 percent of all adult illegal immigrants are poor, compared to 13 percent of native-born adults.[36] Economic and Social Assimilation of Illegal Immigrant Offspring One important question is the future economic status of the children and grandchildren of current illegal immigrants, assuming those offspring remain in the U.S. While we obviously do not have data on future economic status, we may obtain a strong indication of future outcomes by examining the educational attainment of offspring of recent Mexican immigrants. Some 57 percent of current illegal immigrants come from Mexico, and about half of Mexicans currently in the U.S. are here illegally.[37] First-generation Mexican immigrants are individuals born in Mexico who have entered the U.S. In 2000, some 70 percent of first-generation Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) lacked a high school degree. Second-generation Mexicans may be defined as individuals born in the U.S. who have at least one parent born in Mexico. Second-generation Mexican immigrants (individuals born in the U.S. who have at least one parent born in Mexico) have greatly improved educational outcomes but still fall well short of the general U.S. population. Some 25 percent of second-generation Mexicans in the U.S. fail to complete high school. By contrast, the high school drop out rate is 8.6 percent among non-Hispanic whites and 17.2 percent among blacks. Critically, the educational attainment of third-generation Mexicans (those of Mexican ancestry with both parents born in the U.S.) improves little relative to the second generation. Some 21 percent of third-generation Mexicans are high school drop outs.[38] Similarly, the rate of college attendance among second-generation Mexicans is lower than for black Americans and about two-thirds of the level for non-Hispanic whites; moreover, college attendance does not improve in the third generation.[39] These data indicate that the offspring of illegal Hispanic immigrants are likely to have lower rates of educational attainment and higher rates of school failure compared to the non-Hispanic U.S. population. High rates of school failure coupled with high rates of out-of-wedlock childbearing are strong predictors of future poverty and welfare dependence. Immigration and Crime Historically, immigrant populations have had lower crime rates than native-born populations. For example, in 1991, the overall crime and incarceration rate for non-citizens was slightly lower than for citizens.[40] On the other hand, the crime rate among Hispanics in the U.S. is high. Age-specific incarceration rates (prisoners per 100,000 residents in the same age group in the general population) among Hispanics in federal and state prisons are two to two-and-a-half times higher than among non-Hispanic whites.[41] Relatively little of this difference appears to be due to immigration violations.[42] Illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly Hispanic. It is possible that, over time, Hispanic immigrants and their children may assimilate the higher crime rates that characterize the low-income Hispanic population in the U.S. as a whole.[43] If this were to occur, then policies that would give illegal immigrants permanent residence through amnesty, as well as policies which would permit a continuing influx of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants each year, would increase crime in the long term. The Fiscal Impact of Immigration One important question is the fiscal impact of immigration (both legal and illegal). Policymakers must ensure that the interaction of welfare and immigration policy does not expand the welfare-dependent popula_?tion, which would hinder rather than help immi_?grants and impose large costs on American society. This means that immigrants should be net contributors to government: the taxes they pay should exceed the cost of the benefits they receive. In calculating the fiscal impact of an individual or family, it is necessary to distinguish between public goods and private goods. Public goods do not require additional spending to accommodate new residents.[44] The clearest examples of government public goods are national defense and medical and scientific research. The entry of millions of immigrants will not raise costs or diminish the value of these public goods to the general population. Other government services are private goods; use of these by one person precludes or limits use by another. Government private goods include direct personal benefits such as welfare, Social Security benefits, Medicare, and education. Other government private goods are “congestible” goods.[45] These are services that must be expanded in proportion to the population. Government congestible goods include police and fire protection, roads and sewers, parks, libraries, and courts. If these services do not expand as the population expands, there will be a decrease in the quality of service. An individual makes a positive fiscal contribution when his total taxes paid exceed the direct benefits and congestible goods received by himself and his family.[46] The Fiscal Impact of Low Skill Immigration The 1997 New Americans study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) examined the fiscal impact of immigration.[47] It found that, within in a single year, the fiscal impact of foreign-born households was negative in the two states studied, New Jersey and California.[48] Measured over the course of a lifetime, the fiscal impact of first-generation immigrants nationwide was also slightly negative.[49] However, when the future earnings and taxes paid by the offspring of the immigrant were counted, the long-term fiscal impact was positive. One commonly cited figure from the report is that the net present value (NPV) of the fiscal impact of the average recent immigrant and his descendents is $83,000.[50] There are five important caveats about the NAS longitudinal study and its conclusion that in the long term the fiscal impact of immigration is positive. First, the study applies to all recent immigration, not just illegal immigration. Second, the finding that the long-term fiscal impact of immigration is positive applies to the population of immigrants as a whole, not to low-skill immigrants alone. Third, the $83,000 figure is based on the predicted earnings, tax payments, and benefits of an immigrant’s descendents over the next 300 years.[51] Fourth, the study does not take into account the growth in out-of-wedlock childbearing among the foreign-born population, which will increase future welfare costs and limit the upward mobility of future generations. Fifth, the assumed educational attainment of the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of immigrants who are high school dropouts or high school graduates seems unreasonably high given the actual attainment of the offspring of recent Mexican and Hispanic immigrants.[52] The NAS study’s 300-year time horizon is highly problematic. Three hundred years ago, the United States did not even exist and British colonists had barely reached the Appalachian Mountains. We cannot reasonably estimate what taxes and benefits will be even 30 years from now, let alone 300. The NAS study assumes that most people’s descendents will eventually regress to the social and economic mean, and thus may make a positive fiscal contribution, if the time horizon is long enough. With similar methods, it seems likely that out-of-wedlock childbearing could be found to have a net positive fiscal value as long as assumed future earnings are projected out 500 or 600 years. Slight variations to NAS’s assumptions used by NAS greatly affect the projected outcomes. For example, limiting the time horizon to 50 years and raising the assumed interest rate from 3 percent to 4 percent drops the NPV of the average immigrant from around $80,000 to $8,000.[53] Critically, the NAS projections assumed very large tax increases and benefits cuts would begin in 2016 to prevent the federal deficit from rising further relative to GDP. This assumption makes it far easier for future generations to be scored as fiscal contributors. If these large tax hikes and benefit cuts do not occur, then the long-term positive fiscal value of immigration evaporates.[54] Moreover, if future tax hikes and benefit cuts do occur, the exact nature of those changes would likely have a large impact on the findings; this issue is not explored in the NAS study. Critically, the estimated net fiscal impact of the whole immigrant population has little bearing on the fiscal impact of illegal immigrants, who are primarily low-skilled. As noted, at least 50 percent of illegal immigrants do not have a high school degree. As the NAS report states, “[S]ome groups of immigrants bring net fiscal benefits to natives and others impose net fiscal costs¼ [I]mmigrants with certain characteristics, such as the elderly and those with little education, may be quite costly.”[55] The NAS report shows that the long-term fiscal impact of immigrants varies dramatically according to the education level of the immigrant. The fiscal impact of immigrants with some college education is positive. The fiscal impact of immigrants with a high school degree varies according to the time horizon used. The fiscal impact of immigrants without a high school degree is negative: benefits received will exceed taxes paid. The net present value of the future fiscal impact of immigrants without a high school degree is negative even when the assumed earnings and taxes of descendents over the next 300 years are included in the calculation.[56] A final point is that the NAS study’s estimates assume that low skill immigration does not reduce the wages of native-born low-skill workers. If low-skill immigration does, in fact, reduce the wages of native-born labor, this would reduce taxes paid and increase welfare expenditures for that group. The fiscal, social, and political implications could be quite large. The Cost of Amnesty Federal and state governments currently spend over $500 billion per year on means-tested welfare benefits.[57] Illegal aliens are ineligible for most federal welfare benefits but can receive some assistance through programs such as Medicaid, In addition, native-born children of illegal immigrant parents are citizens and are eligible for all relevant federal welfare benefits. Granting amnesty to illegal aliens would have two opposing fiscal effects. On the one hand, it may raise wages and taxes paid by broadening the labor market individuals compete in; it would also increase tax compliance and tax receipts as more work would be performed “on the books,”[58] On the other hand, amnesty would greatly increase the receipt of welfare, government benefits, and social services. Because illegal immigrant households tend to be low-skill and low-wage, the cost to government could be considerable. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has performed a thorough study of the federal fiscal impacts of amnesty.[59] This study found that illegal immigrant households have low education levels and low wages and currently pay little in taxes. Illegal immigrant households also receive lower levels of federal government benefits. Nonetheless, the study also found that, on average, illegal immigrant families received more in federal benefits than they paid in taxes.[60] Granting amnesty would render illegal immigrants eligible for federal benefit programs. The CIS study estimated the additional taxes that would be paid and the additional government costs that would occur as a result of amnesty. It assumed that welfare utilization and tax payment among current illegal immigrants would rise to equal the levels among legally-admitted immigrants of similar national, educational, and demographic backgrounds. If all illegal immigrants were granted amnesty, federal tax payments would increase by some $3,000 per household, but federal benefits and social services would increase by $8,000 per household. Total federal welfare benefits would reach around $9,500 per household, or $35 billion per year total. The study estimates that the net cost to the federal government of granting amnesty to some 3.8 million illegal alien households would be around $5,000 per household, for a total federal fiscal cost of $19 billion per year.[61] preference for entry visas. The current visa allotments for family members (other than spouses and minor children) should be eliminated, and quotas for employment- and skill-based entry increased proportionately.
*
“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
*
ONE QUARTER OF CONGRESS!!!!!!! IS NOW THE HISPANIC CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS!!!!!! THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA! MEXIFORNIA SENDS FOUR LA RAZA FASCIST TO CONGRESS. THEY ARE RABIDLY RACIST SUPREMACIST REPS. JOE BACA, XAVIER BECERRA, SISTERS LINDA AND LORETTA SANCHEZ. OBAMA’S LA RAZA SEC. OF (ILLEGAL) LABOR IS FORMER CONGRESSWOMAN HILDA SOLIS. ALL PUT IN OFFICE BY THE VOTES OF ILLEGALS!!!!!

HERE’S AN EXAMPLE OF THEIR PRO-LA RAZA – GRINGOS PAY AGENDA:

Reps. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) and  Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) wrote President Obama last month on behalf of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, calling on the White House to terminate the program.
Yesterday, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) held a mass rally on the Capitol's West Lawn to present the outline of his new mass amnesty / weak enforcement bill. Of course, his proposed legislation includes a path to citizenship for most of the illegal aliens currently in the U.S. Earlier this year, Gutierrez barnstormed the country, speaking to dozens of churches, arguing for more immigration and amnesty.

According to Gutierrez, granting amnesty to illegal aliens is the righteous, merciful, and just thing to do. To hear it from Gutierrez, entering America illegally is practically a civil right!

What about America's tens of millions of unemployed, who must compete with illegal aliens for jobs and scarce social services? Where's the compassion for these people? Hundreds of NumbersUSA members have written to me recently telling me they've been laid off. Anyone care about them?
*
“To hear it from Gutierrez, entering America illegally is practically a civil right!”

Lou Dobbs Tonight
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
In his first state of the union speech since becoming president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon criticized the U.S. government and its efforts to shut down illegal immigration. During the speech Calderon proclaimed that “Mexico does not end at its borders” and that “where there is a Mexican, there is a Mexico.”
*
“In Mexico, a recent Zogby poll declared that the vast majority of Mexican citizens hate Americans. [22.2] Mexico is a country saturated with racism, yet in denial, having never endured the social development of a Civil Rights movement like in the US--Blacks are harshly treated while foreign Whites are often seen as the enemy. [22.3] In fact, racism as workplace discrimination can be seen across the US anywhere the illegal alien Latino works--the vast majority of the workforce is usually strictly Latino, excluding Blacks, Whites, Asians, and others.”

*
“The increase in the number living in poverty, and falling incomes for the vast majority, stand in contrast to the continued rise in incomes for the richest 1 percent. Payouts to Wall Street bankers and financial traders are set to reach new heights in 2009. The Census Bureau figures provide one more indication of the enormous social tensions building up within the United States.”
*
“It is clear that far from seeking to reign in executive pay, the Obama administration has done everything in its power to defend the exorbitant compensation of the Wall Street CEOs.”
*
Wsws.org… get on their free daily email news
US poverty rate hits 11-year high
By Shannon Jones
11 September 2009
Poverty in the United States climbed to 13.2 percent in 2008, up from 12.5 percent in 2007, the highest level since 1997. The increase came as millions of workers lost their jobs in the first year of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression. Meanwhile, median household income hit its lowest level since 1997, while the number of people without health insurance rose. The data was contained in the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey released on Thursday.
In 2008, 39.8 million people were living in poverty, up from 37.3 million in 2007. The government defines poverty as a family of four with an annual income of less than $22,025. By this measure, the poverty rate for children under the age of 18 rose from 18 percent in 2007 to 19 percent in 2009. There were 14.1 million children living in poverty in 2008. The family poverty rate rose to 10.3 percent in 2008, with 8.1 million families in poverty. As the government’s official poverty threshold is woefully low, these figures drastically understate the true picture.
The US Midwest and West showed increases in both the poverty rate and the number living in poverty. The Midwest, hard hit by job losses in manufacturing, saw an increase in the poverty rate to 12.4 percent in 2008, up from 11.1 percent in 2007, an increase of 900,000 people living in poverty. The poverty rate in the West, battered by the collapse of the housing bubble, rose from 12 percent to 13.5 percent, an increase of 1.2 million additional people.
The poverty rate for whites rose to 8.6 percent, up from 8.2 percent in 2007. Poverty among Hispanics rose to 23.2 percent, up from 21.5 percent in 2007. Meanwhile, poverty among African American remained unchanged at 24.7 percent. According to the report, 31 percent of Americans fell into poverty for at least two months between 2004 and 2007. In 2008, 17.1 million people had income below one-half of their poverty threshold, in other words were living in extreme poverty. Of this number, 36.8 percent were children.
According to the report, median household income fell 3.6 percent between 2007 and 2008. The drop in median income was the largest annual decline since 1991, and means that in inflation adjusted dollars median income stands lower than in 1998. This is the first time in the 40 years that the Census Bureau has tracked household income that there has been a 10-year period in which median income did not increase. In all likelihood this is the first such decline since the Depression decade of the 1930s, as the 1940s and 1950s generally saw rising incomes.
The largest drop in income, 5.4 percent, occurred among wage earners in the 45 to 54 year age-range. The second greatest decline, 3.9 percent, came for workers in the 55-64 age bracket.
While the percentage of people without health coverage remained unchanged in 2008, the number of uninsured increased to 46.3 million, up from 45.7 million in 2008. Among children under the age of 18, 15.9 percent lacked health coverage. The number of people covered by employment-based health insurance fell from 177.4 million to 176.3 million, reflecting the impact of job losses and employers dropping health coverage for employees. For the eighth straight year, 2008 saw a drop the percentage of people covered by employer-based health insurance.
Meanwhile, the number covered by government-based health insurance rose from 83 million to 87.4 million, as a number of states expanded Medicaid and health insurance programs for children.
Texas had the highest rate of uninsured, a staggering 25 percent, up from 24.1 percent in 2007. New Mexico came in second with an uninsured rate of 23 percent. California had the largest number of uninsured, with 6.7 million people lacking coverage.
These figures present a pale reflection of the present situation, since they do not reflect the impact of continuing mass layoffs and cuts in social services. Based on the continuing job losses, the real number of uninsured is probably closer to 50 million, the figure used by the Congressional Budget Office.
The official unemployment rate in August stood at 9.7 percent. Some 7 million people have lost their jobs since the start of the recession, 3.8 million so far this year, and the toll is growing.
An economist with the Economic Policy Institute told Reuters that by their estimate “a quarter of all children in this country will be living in poverty” by the end of this year.

The increase in the number living in poverty, and falling incomes for the vast majority, stand in contrast to the continued rise in incomes for the richest 1 percent. Payouts to Wall Street bankers and financial traders are set to reach new heights in 2009. The Census Bureau figures provide one more indication of the enormous social tensions building up within the United States.

*
25 THINGS OBAMA DOES NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT OBAMANOMICS - HOW BARACK SOLD OUT A NATION TO WALL ST CRIMINALS and ILLEGALS:

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2012/07/25-more-things-obama-does-not-want-you.html

DOJ: Immigration Apprehensions Lowest Since 1972

July 23, 2012 |

Newly released government records seem to indicate that the Obama Administration got to work right away on its stealth amnesty plan, drastically slashing the number of immigration apprehensions during its first two years in power.

Apprehensions for immigration violations plummeted dramatically from 1.8 million in 2000 to an all-time low of 516,992 in 2010, according to a report released this month by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The document was created by a special division of the DOJ (Bureau of Justice Statistics) that collects and disseminates information on crime and the operation of the justice system.

Less than two years into the Obama presidency, the number of immigration violation apprehensions was at the lowest level since 1972, according the federal report. Arrests, however, tripled from 25,205 to 82,438, but this is deceiving because apprehensions are instances in which foreign nationals are caught in the U.S. illegally. Arrests refer to the booking of an individual by U.S. Marshals for violating federal immigration law.

Under this formula, if a lot less illegal immigrants are getting “apprehended” or caught in the first place, simply increasing the number of actual “arrests” is not going to cut it. For the purpose of the DOJ stats, apprehensions and arrests represent events and not actual individuals because some illegal aliens could be apprehended or arrested on multiple occasions.

Not surprisingly, the core of the apprehensions took place at or near the Mexican border with the Tucson Arizona sector leading the way in 2010 with 212,202. The others are; San Diego (68,565), Rio Grande Valley (59,766), Laredo (35,287), El Centro (32,562) and Del Rio (14,694). An overwhelming chunk of the illegal immigrants, 83%, were citizens of Mexico though an increasing number (12%) came from Central American countries.

Here are a few other interesting stats revealed in the DOJ’s report, which keep in mind, only covers up to 2010. The most common immigration offense charged in federal court in 2010 was illegal reentry (81%) with two-thirds of the defendants having a prior felony arrest and more than half a prior felony conviction. They include large numbers of drug-related and violent felonies, according to the report.

The bottom line is that this appears to be yet another tidbit supporting the Obama Administration’s backdoor amnesty plan, which has become bolder over the years. Last month the president proudly announced—at a Rose Garden press conference—a controversial plan to spare nearly 1 million young illegal immigrants from deportation, even as the administration works behind the scenes granting stealth amnesty to many more undocumented aliens.

As of the end of May, 4,585 deportation cases were closed under a special Homeland Security program—prosecutorial discretion—created last summer to conduct “an unprecedented review of all immigration cases pending in the immigration courts and incoming cases.” The number continues rising, according to ICE figures obtained by a nonpartisan data research center that studies the government.





THE MEXICAN CRIME TIDAL WAVE SPREADS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES

Everyday there are 12 Americans murdered by Mexicans and 8 children molested!




*

WILL MEXICO BANKRUPT AMERICA?

CALIFORNIA UNDER MEXICAN-OCCUPATION PAYS OUT $22 BILLION PER YEAR IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS!




*

WILL OHIO  BE BANKRUPTED BY THE LA RAZA MEX OCCUPATION THAT NOT ONE LEGAL VOTED FOR?




*

HOW MANY BILLIONS ARE MARYLANDERS FORCED TO PAY FOR MEX WELFARE AND LOOTING?


 *

BARACK OBAMA, FIRST HISPANDERING LA RAZA “THE RACE” PRESIDENT – HIS LA RAZA SUPREMACIST INFESTED ADMINISTRATION:







OBAMA'S LA RAZA "THE RACE" PARTY BASE of MEXICAN LOOTERS and CRIMINALS


MEXICO’S BIGGEST EXPORTS NEXT TO DRUGS IS POVERTY, CRIMINALS AND RAPID ANCHOR BABY BIRTHERS = 18 YEARS OF WELFARE LOOTERS!
MEXICO NOW HAS MORE THAN 50 CONSULATES (COMPARED TO THE UNITED KINGDOM’S 8) WHICH OPERATE AS LA RAZA “THE RACE” HEADQUARTERS TO HELP GET ILLEGAL REGISTERED TO VOTE, AND PUSH THE LA RAZA SUPREMACY AGENDA. THE LATEST LA RAZA CONSULATE TO OPEN WAS ON THE ISLAND OF CATALINA, OFF THE COAST OF LOS ANGELES, NARCOMEX’S NEWEST GATEWAY FOR THE DRUG CARTELS. ON CATALINA, MOST OF THE SERVICE INDUSTRY JOBS ARE HELD BY ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS!

“I know that many aliens who come here to work want to remain here, yet all too many come to the United States with a "looter" philosophy, giving the lawful immigrants who want to share in the “American Dream” a bad reputation.”
*
MOST OF THE FORTUNE 500 ARE GENEROUS DONORS TO THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA. LA RAZA AT ONE TIME LISTED THESE TRAITORS ON THEIR WEB UNTIL LEGALS BECAME SO OUTRAGED THEY DELETED THE TRAITORS’ CORPORATE NAMES.
ONE OF THE BIGGEST ADVOCATES FOR OPEN BORDERS, AMNESTY, NON-ENFORCEMENT, AND NO E-VERIFY, IS THE U.S. CHAMBER of COMMERCE. OPEN BORDERS KEEPS WAGES DEPRESSED FROM $300 TO $400 BILLION PER YEAR!

“But when you read about the amounts of money being sent out of the United States that is lost to our economy, you must realize that the money you are reading about is not being earned by Americans or by lawful immigrants, because they have been displaced by illegal aliens who are willing to work for substandard wages.”

“Part of the problem is that the relationship that businesses have with the United States is one of greed.”

*
LA RAZA DONOR WELLS FARGO WAS AT ONE TIME THE BIGGEST BANKSTER LAUNDERER FOR THE MEX DRUG CARTELS UNTIL THEY WERE CAUGHT AND RECEIVED A TINY SLAP ON THE WRIST. THEY’RE PROBABLY BACK AT IT ALREADY.  WELLS FARGO FUCKED OVER AMERICAN TAX PAYERS BY HANDING THOUSANDS OF MORTGAGES TO ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS AND FRAUDULENT I.D.S!

“And the bankers and money wire services like Western Union have become the silent partners of the illegal aliens.”

*
YES! OBAMA DID LIE THAT HIS OBAMACARE DID NOT INCLUDE ILLEGALS! THERE HAVE BEEN 85 HOSPITALS IN MEXIFORNIA GO BANKRUPT FROM LEGALLY HAVING TO HAND “FREE” MEDICAL TO ILLEGALS! CA PUTS OUT $1.2 BILLION PER YEAR IN “FREE” HEALTHCARE, AND MEXICO IS EVER PUSHING FOR EVEN MORE TO BE HANDED TO THE OCCUPIERS!

“They will do this when they show up in the emergency rooms of hospitals across our nation demanding medical treatment without medical insurance.”

MEXICAN CRIME TIDAL WAVE

EVERY DAY THERE ARE 12 AMERICANS KILLED BY ILLEGALS! CA ALONE HAS HAD MORE THAN 2,000 AMERICANS MURDERED BY ILLEGAL THAT FLED BACK OVER THE BORDER TO NARCOMEX!

“The criminal element of this massive influx of illegal aliens will injure and kill more victims in our country, destroying lives and the lives of family members of the victims of those crimes.”

MEXICAN GANGS
ACCORDING TO CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMALA HARRIS, NEARLY HALF OF THE MURDERS IN CA ARE BY MEXICAN GANGS!

“When these guys come out of Compton — when they do their rape, rob, and pillage in the rest of the county because they’ve maximized what they can get in Compton — they’re going to come to other cities.”

*
THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT STATES WITH A POPULATION GREATER THAN LOS ANGELES COUNTY WHERE HALF THE JOBS ARE HELD BY ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS. THIS SAME COUNTY PAYS OUT $600 MILLION PER YEAR IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS AND ENJOYS A TAX-FREE MEXICAN UNDERGROUND ECONOMY CALCULATED TO BE MORE THAN $2 BILLION PER YEAR!

MEXICAN LOOTING... THAT SUCKING SOUND




“I know that many aliens who come here to work want to remain here, yet all too many come to the United States with a "looter" philosophy, giving the lawful immigrants who want to share in the “American Dream” a bad reputation.” Recently I wrote a commentary about the movement of cash out of the United States through remittances and other methods by illegal aliens who came here with the single-minded focus of securing illegal employment to send money home to assist their family members. The amounts of money that are consequently drained from our economy are huge and do not include the other costs our nation incurs because of the 40 million illegal aliens who are estimated to be residing and working in our country illegally. This article, originally published in the Christian Science Monitor, focuses on the impact of the reduction in the value of the dollar on the illegal aliens who are draining billions of dollars out of our nation's economy – but nothing is said about the impact of this loss of money on the economy of the United States and on the ability of the average American to meet his expenses. So-called "man in the street" interviews of lottery ticket purchasers (that broadcast journalists frequently conduct when lottery jackpots soar into the stratosphere) often include a person with a distinctive foreign accent (not necessary Spanish) and the question is asked, "If you win the $120 million prize what will you do?" In so many of those cases, the answer is quick and to the point, "I am going home to my country!" In my former INS experience, it was not uncommon for the illegal aliens I arrested to make it clear that they were here for one purpose: to make as much money as possible as quickly as possible and send it all home. I know that many aliens who come here to work want to remain here, yet all too many come to the United States with a "looter" philosophy, giving the lawful immigrants who want to share in the “American Dream” a bad reputation. Part of the problem is that the relationship that businesses have with the United States is one of greed. These companies couldn't care less about the damage that they do to this country or the average working American. They are happy to exploit the illegal aliens and in so doing, get a lucrative piece of the action. And the bankers and money wire services like Western Union have become the silent partners of the illegal aliens. Of course, if the American dollar plummets far enough many illegal aliens will probably just head home, leaving this country in financial disarray. But when you read about the amounts of money being sent out of the United States that is lost to our economy, you must realize that the money you are reading about is not being earned by Americans or by lawful immigrants, because they have been displaced by illegal aliens who are willing to work for substandard wages. Unfortunately, Congress has just passed what has been billed as an "Economic Stimulus Package." This bill will undoubtedly be signed into law by the President and will call for taxpayers to be mailed one-time rebate checks that (it is hoped) will be used to spend on consumer goods that – get this – for the most part are not even produced in the United States. A large part of the problem we are having right now is that Americans are not saving enough money. Our citizens have been cashing in the value of their homes with second mortgages and huge credit card debts and now, the value of most of those houses has fallen into the basement! There is an utter lack of fiscal responsibility in abundant evidence in Washington and around kitchen tables across the United States and meanwhile, the front runners in the Presidential elections are eager to provide amnesty and thus more incentives for still more illegal aliens to drain still more money out of our economy. They will do this through remittances and other means of sending money back home. They will do this when they show up in the emergency rooms of hospitals across our nation demanding medical treatment without medical insurance. The criminal element of this massive influx of illegal aliens will injure and kill more victims in our country, destroying lives and the lives of family members of the victims of those crimes. Some of the crimes will also result in property losses and in fraud. Identity theft is the fastest growing white collar crime in America today and is often motivated by organized rings that sell these stolen identities to illegal aliens seeking illegal employment. The Congressional Budget Office has recently done a study that concludes that contrary to the assertions of the open borders / pro-amnesty crowd, illegal aliens represent a net drain on the economy. Finally, the attacks of September 11, 2001, in addition to the death and destruction they wrought, hammered our economy and the economies of other countries. Trade suffered, travel and tourism suffered – yet the travel and hospitality industries are pushing a program known as "Discover America" wherein they are attempting to have the United States government expand the Visa Waiver Program beyond the current 27 participating countries to as many as 39 countries.

In the end, the United States and its working poor and middle class that is shouldering the greatest burden of the open borders and cash movement mess. Interestingly, with all of the interviews that were conducted in the article linked above, not a single interview was conducted to find out what the impact of the decline of the dollar has had on the average American family.

THE ABOVE ARTICLE FROM THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
*
THE F.B.I. REPORTS THAT THE MEX DRUG CARTELS OPERATE FROM 2,500 AMERICAN CITIES.

COMPTON GANG MURDERS ...it’s now happening all over the country!

"There are over 100-plus active violent gangs in Los Angeles County, and you have 100 holes in the dike and the problem is you only have so many plugs. If you pull one plug in an area where you've plugged up the violence, will it pour out there again?"

By Megan Garvey Times Staff Writer

December 12, 2005



COMPTON GANG MURDERS ...it’s now happening all over the country! Gang-related homicides are up more than 30% this year in areas under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, but the department's countywide gang enforcement team is substantially smaller than it was three years ago and remains chronically understaffed. For many years the department dealt with significantly less gang crime than police in the city of Los Angeles. No more. At least half of the homicides in sheriff's territories are now gang killings, about the same level as in the city. Statewide, gang violence accounts for about 16% of all homicides. This year, while gang homicides rose sharply in a few small areas patrolled by the sheriff — Compton, East Los Angeles and unincorporated neighborhoods bordering Watts — Operation Safe Streets, the department's anti-gang unit, lacked flexibility to move specially trained personnel out of lower-crime areas and into communities with soaring gang killings, according to its head of operations. In an interview Friday, Baca seemed surprised that gang homicides were up substantially — 210 as of late last week, compared with 164 for the same period last year — but said he needs more personnel to deal with gang crime."We are doing our best with what we have and we don't have enough," he said. "If you doubled what we have, we don't have enough."Baca is promoting a quarter-cent sales tax earmarked for gang intervention and enforcement, which he hopes to get on the ballot next year. Such a tax would generate about $280 million annually for law enforcement agencies in L.A. County, he said. For the time being, Baca said, shifting resources is not the answer because it might suppress crime in one area at the cost of allowing it to increase elsewhere."What one has to understand is the nature of policing gangs," Baca said. "There are over 100-plus active violent gangs in Los Angeles County, and you have 100 holes in the dike and the problem is you only have so many plugs. If you pull one plug in an area where you've plugged up the violence, will it pour out there again?"The department's difficulties responding to the increased rate of killing underscore two of the biggest problems the Sheriff's Department faces: It is seriously understaffed, with nearly 1,000 fewer deputies overall than the 9,500 authorized, and its political structure works against assigning available deputies based on the worst crime problems.The Sheriff's Department patrols unincorporated areas of the county and 41 cities that contract with the department for policing. Cities pay for a specific number of deputies each year and, if they can afford it, may add personnel and specialized teams as needed. Baca said about 55% of his deputies work under city contracts.  The gang unit is one of several specialized teams that work countywide for all residents, allowing the sheriff discretion — in theory, at least — in their deployment. But because the department serves an area with 2.6 million residents over 4,000 square miles, distribution of limited resources is challenging. Capt. Mike Ford, who runs Operation Safe Streets and is Rifkin's boss, noted that although other areas have fewer homicides than Compton, gang crime is quite real to people who live in those areas."The reality is we work for the people who live there, and no one likes to deal with graffiti or drug dealing," he said, adding that he would be reluctant to withdraw officers from other areas, even if that were politically possible. But some gang crime experts warn that the department's approach to distributing its deputies could allow crime to spread."If 50% or more of your murders are gang-related, it looks to me like you ought to have a lot of resources doing that," said Wes McBride, president of the Assn. of California Gang Investigators

WHEN THESE GUYS COME OUT OF COMPTON ---- WHEN THEY DO THEIR RAPE, ROB, AND PILLAGE IN THE REST OF THE COUNTY BECAUSE THEY’VE MAXIMIZED WHAT THEY CAN GET IN COMPTON ---- THEY’RE GOING TO COME TO OTHER CITIES.




"When these guys come out of Compton — when they do their rape, rob and pillage in the rest of the county because they've maximized what they can get in Compton — they're going to come to other cities," said McBride, who headed Operation Safe Streets before retiring in 2002. Sheriff's officials count a crime as gang-related only if it is directly tied to gang activity. If the wife of a gang member is killed by her husband in a domestic dispute, for example, it is not counted as a gang crime. If she is killed to stop her from telling authorities about the gang, it is.The rise in gang violence in Compton, as well as in East Los Angeles and areas bordering southeast Los Angeles, has pushed up overall homicides for the Sheriff's Department. With three weeks remaining in 2005, homicides of all types in county areas and in cities that contract with the Sheriff's Department total 395, passing last year's 392.By contrast, although the city of Los Angeles continues to record more homicides than the county, its total has fallen and is on track to be at its lowest in half a dozen years. As of the end of October, the LAPD reported a 15% decline in gang homicides over the same period last year, 216 compared with 255.Ford said gang suppression and investigation remain top priorities for the department. "The question," he said, "is how many resources do you have?"Through late last week, Compton had 68 gang-related homicides, up from 42 for all of last year. The nearby territory bordering southeast Los Angeles, patrolled by the Century sheriff's station, had 57 gang-related homicides, up from 37 in 2004.Together, the two areas account for nearly 60% of the county's gang-related homicides, Sheriff's Department statistics show. Yet about a quarter of available gang investigators are assigned to those areas. In addition, each shares a gang suppression team with a neighboring station, a move made last year by Ford when, he said, insufficient staff made regional teams necessary. Ten gang suppression deputies and a sergeant are assigned to the Compton-Carson area, where there have been 72 gang homicides this year. Another team of 11 serves Century and Lennox stations, which account for 70 gang killings. In comparison, the Palmdale and Lancaster area also has a team of 11 gang suppression officers, two paid under Lancaster's contract. That area has had 13 gang-related homicides this year. The sheriff made no move to shift gang officers to Compton when violence shot upward there early this year. At Century station, where a specific gang war was identified, a task force was formed, but the gang unit was not expanded. Another problem area has been East Los Angeles, which has had 20 gang-related homicides this year, up from 11 for each of the previous two years. In that area, too, the number of gang enforcement personnel has not been increased. The need for a larger gang enforcement team is widely acknowledged. McBride, who spent nearly three decades as a gang specialist in the Sheriff's Department, estimated that Compton's gang problem alone would justify 50 gang suppression officers and a team of 10 to 15 investigators. Ford and other gang experts caution that simply moving deputies to a hot spot might not have much impact. Effective gang officers, they note, develop sources on the street over time. Compton's level of gang activity, for instance, complicates law enforcement efforts to get intelligence and also makes it harder to target any one area to significantly reduce criminal activity, sheriff's officials said. The city, which covers 10 square miles and has about 96,000 residents, has at least 10 active and violent street gangs, as well as numerous other crews, said Percy Perrodin, the city's former deputy police chief and brother of Mayor Eric Perrodin."You're talking about a very complex gang situation," said Cheryl Maxson, a UC Irvine professor who studies street gangs. By mid-2005, Compton had as many homicides as all of 2004, but city officials said there were no additional funds to add to the 72 deputies who patrol the city."People need to realize that Compton's problems won't stay in Compton. Absolutely, they ought to be concerned about what's happening, and they ought to help," he said. "We give foreign aid to other countries so they won't fall apart. How about some domestic aid?" COMPTON’S PROBLEMS WON’T STAY IN COMPTON.... NO, THEY’RE ALL OVER THE 50 STATES NOW

*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, February 11, 2008
In California, League of United Latin American Citizens has adopted a resolution to declare "California Del Norte" a sanctuary zone for immigrants. The declaration urges the Mexican government to invoke its rights under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo "to seek third nation neutral arbitration of ....disputes concerning immigration laws and their enforcement." We’ll have the story.
Lou Dobbs Tonight Wednesday
March 5, 2008
Immigration experts are appearing on Capitol Hill today to release the results of a study showing the cost of illegal immigration on the criminal justices system in the 24 U.S. counties bordering Mexico–more $1 billion in less than a decade.
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Gov. Schwarzenegger said California is facing “financial Armageddon”. He is making drastic cuts in the budget for education, health care and services. But there is one place he isn’t making cuts… services for illegal immigrants. These services are estimated to cost the state four to five billion dollars a year. Schwarzenegger said he is “happy” to offer these services. We will have a full report tonight.
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Thursday, May 28, 2009

 Plus drug cartel violence is spreading across our border with Mexico further into the United States. Mexican drug cartels are increasingly being linked to crimes in this country. Joining Lou tonight, from our border with Mexico is the new “border czar” Alan Bersin, the Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs.

Lou Dobbs Tonight
Thursday, April 9, 2009

 Plus, outrage after President Obama prepares to push ahead with his plan for so-called comprehensive immigration reform. Pres. Obama is fulfilling a campaign promise to give
legal status to millions of illegal aliens as he panders to the pro-amnesty, open borders lobby. Tonight we will have complete coverage.
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, February 16, 2009
Construction of the 670 miles of border fence mandated by the Bush administration is almost complete. The Border Patrol says the new fencing, more agents and new technology
have reduced illegal alien apprehensions. But fence opponents are trying to stop the last few miles from being finished. We will have a full report, tonight.


 Plus, even open border advocates agree that the most effective way of fighting illegal immigration is to crack down on the employment of illegal aliens. Yet, those same groups are
opposed to E-Verify, which has an initial accuracy rate of 99.6% making it one the most accurate programs ever. E-Verify was stripped from the stimulus bill but who stripped it out and who is opposed to verifying employment status is still not clear.
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Friday, October 17, 2008

Tonight, a Supreme Court ruling is putting our democracy at risk. The court today overturned a federal appeals court decision that would have forced Ohio to do more to verify questionable voter registrations. We’ll have the very latest in our special report.

Plus, in the War on the Middle Class tonight, a government program is found to be rampant with fraud and abuse, giving even more American jobs to foreign workers. A new Department of Homeland Security report shows cases of violations, forgery and shell businesses in the H-1B visa program. We’ll have that and much more.
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Tuesday, January 13, 2009

In Colorado, over 1,300 illegal aliens are being investigated for applying for improper tax refunds. The ACLU has written a letter to the judge threatening to sue if the judge convenes a grand jury to investigate the case. We will have all the latest developments of the case as well as the ACLU’s bullying in pursuit of their amnesty agenda.
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Tuesday, February 3, 2009

And WILLIAM GHEEN, the president of Americans for Legal Immigration, breaks down his push for E-Verify—and why the Obama administration is wrong to delay its implementation when it comes to federal contractors.

OBAMA’S CAMPAIGN FOR THE ILLEGALS’ VOTES:
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Thursday, October 22, 2009

The federal government has declared war on Sheriff JOE ARPAIO of Maricopa County, Arizona, for enforcing our nation’s immigration laws. “America’s Toughest Sheriff” will give Lou an update.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight
Friday, October 16, 2009

E-Verify- the single most successful federal program aimed at keeping illegal immigrants out of the workforce- is once again threatened. This time, E-Verify was stripped from a Senate Amendment behind closed doors and without explanation. Instead of becoming a permanent program E-verify has been reduced to only three years. Critics are calling this a stall tactic and an attempt at killing an employment enforcement system. We will have a full report tonight.

*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Thursday, October 15, 2009

E-Verify -- the single most successful federal program aimed at keeping illegal immigrants out of the nation's workforce is once again being threatened. Permanent reauthorization for the program -- which has a 99.7-percent accuracy rate -- has been pulled from pending legislation. Now the program is set to expire in just 3-years. The change was made behind closed doors in the Senate -- without public comment or debate.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight
Wednesday, October 14, 2009

New attempts to put comprehensive immigration reform back on the front burner. Congressman Luis Gutierrez -- the chair of the Democratic Caucus Immigration Task Force -- is unveiling new legislation that would call for amnesty for the up to 20 million illegal immigrants in this country.
Congressman Gutierrez will join me tonight
*


Lou Dobbs Tonight
Tuesday, October 6, 2009

 The Obama administration could be weakening a successful joint federal and local program aimed at keeping illegal immigrants off our streets. "287 G" gives local police the training and authority to enforce federal immigration law. Supporters of the program believe the ministration wants to limit the program to criminal illegal immigrants already in custody -- limiting the investigative authority of police.

JIM PETHOKOUKIS, the money and politics columnist for Reuters,
will explain the president’s not-so-secret plan to raise your
taxes.

And Father PATRICK BASCIO has a remarkably different perspective on illegal immigration from that of most Christian clergymen-one he’s outlined in a remarkable new book entitled
On the Immorality of Illegal Immigration: An Alternative Christian View.
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, September 28, 2009


And T.J. BONNER, president of the National Border Patrol Council, will weigh in on the federal government’s decision to pull nearly 400 agents from the U.S.-Mexican border. As always, Lou will take your calls to discuss the issues that matter most-and to get your thoughts on where America is headed. Call him toll-free on the Independent Hotline at 877-55 DOBBS.
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Federal contractors now must use E-verify to check the status of their employees on federal projects. The rule which goes into effect today will affect almost 169,000 contractors and some 3.8 million workers. The E-verify program has an accuracy rating of 99.6% but has been repeatedly challenged by the U.S. Chamber of Congress. We will have a full report
tonight.
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight    
And there are some 800,000 gang members in this country: That’s more than the combined number of troops in our Army and Marine Corps. These gangs have become one of the principle ways to import and distribute drugs in the United States. Congressman David Reichert joins Lou to tell us why those gangs are growing larger and stronger, and why he’s introduced legislation to eliminate the top three international drug gangs.
Lou Dobbs Tonight                       
Thursday, September 18, 2008

Another victory for American workers in Arizona. Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the get-tough employer sanctions law in the state. The law hits employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens with strict penalties and in some cases even strips businesses of their licenses. A lower court upheld the same law in February. But open-borders and amnesty groups along with the business lobby are considering yet another appeal.